A proposal for Tri-Ada '94

A proposal for Tri-Ada '94

[Gregory Aharonian]

    In two months, another Tri-Ada will take place, and despite fifteen years
and hundreds of millions of dollars being spent, one very key number remains
unknown even though the number should be made into a ten foot figure and
hoisted above the Tri-Ada convention hall:


                    WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE DOD USES ADA ????


    As fundamental as your blood pressure, body temperature, or annual 
corporate net profits, this fundamental figure remains unknown, not only as
an instantaneous value (i.e. the percentage as of 11/94), but also its trend.
If the number is high, we should all be celebrating at Tri-Ada, while if the
number is low, we should all be asking very hard questions at Tri-Ada. In
either case, this number should be plastered all over the Tri-Ada convention
site, so people can put what they hear during the sessions in the context of
reality.  But the Ada world cannot go on any longer without knowing this
percentage, and many others.  To not know what percentage of the DoD is
using Ada, fifteen years into Ada, must stop now.

    How in the next two months can this number be calculated?  It turns out
to be quick simple and quite inexpensive.

    Step one is to contact the people at DTIC, who maintain databases of
every open DOD contract and final reports from all closed DoD reports.  It
would be quite simple to have DISA prepare a list of all open software
projects, which include a brief abstract and the telephone number of the
project manager.   I don't know how big such a list is (I assume very big
given the tens of billions the DoD spends on software procurement), but I
do know that DTIC maintains this information in databases that are very
straightforward to query.
    Step one should take one day.

    Step two would be to do some quick ranking of the project sizes on the
list, in order to prepare a subsample of the full list from which the above
percentage can be calculated in a statistically significant way.  In the
time remaining until Tri-Ada, there won't be enough time to contact everyone.
    Step two should take one day.

    Step three would be to start calling everyone on the list and ask them
three questions: what language are you using, what is the expected number
of lines of code, and how much money is being spent on software development.
Admittedly not the most thorough sets of questions, but enough to draw some
decent conclusions.  (Information about the funding agency will be on the
DTIC list as well as project duration I think).
    Budget six weeks of phone calls for step three. This will be the main
cost item, all those telephone calls.

    Step four would be to type in all of the raw data into some statistical
analysis program and generate the statistics and graphs, including the
determination of the above percentage, which would be made into signs for
Tri-Ada to be plastered everywhere at the convention site.
    Step four should take one day.

    Having spent ten years (WITH MY OWN MONEY sorry couldn't resist) doing
such studies on a much more limited scale, I know that such a study is not
only practical to do in the two months left, but will produce meaningful
results.

    Now if the someone in the DoD can instruct the DTIC facility at the
Hancsom Air Force Base to dump such a list for me, and arrange with the local
Electronic Systems Division offices to give me a desk and a DoD telephone to
use, I will be glad to volunteer my time over the next two months to collect
the data, posting the raw data to comp.lang.ada.
    Alternatively, for those who don't trust my integrity or competence,
someone at DISA headquarters working with someone at DTIC headquarters (both
nearby each other in Virginia) could be tasked to do this quick study. Or
someone working on one of the many Ada research efforts such as STARS or
Ada9X who have the funding.  There is too much Ada money floating about for
someone not to be able to collect the data.

    But to go into this year's Tri-Ada without knowing this number is a
irresponible management of taxpayer's dollars.  There will be a lot of talk
about DISA's DualUse plan at Tri-Ada (which sadly doesn't mention this
percentage) - talk that will be wasted without knowing this number as
providing a baseline.

    So how about it?   Can someone in the Ada world calculate this number
before Tri-Ada starts????

Greg Aharonian

Re: A proposal for Tri-Ada '94

[Robert Dewar]

Greg, why not spend some more of YOUR OWN MONEY, which you seem quite happy
to spend on your quest, whatever it is (assuming that for you like all of
us, time is money), and produce your accurate number. I am sure it will
be treated with the respect it deserves. As for me, I must not be part of
the world, since I find I can proceed without knowing this number :-)

More seriously, I think such a raw overall number would in fact be about
as meaningful as Greg's statistics on theses (one of the few of his numbers
that I am in a position to know its significance, accuracy and value).

What would be much more significant is to know the number of recently started
projects that include coding either in 3GL's, 4GL's or Case Tools that do
not use Ada.

Incidentally, I importantly include Case Tools, since people, especially
at a high management level in industry and in DoD are being seduced by
the story that Case tools eliminate the need for programming completely,
and therefore, since there is no programming, there is no more issue of
what programming language is being used.

(In fact of course, Case Tools are little more than compilers for very high
level languages which work very nicely on appropriate examples, but when 
pushed into areas not best suited for them, end up being processors for
highly incompetently designed languages and lots of junk code results. I
found 4GL's a more honest term frankly. Interestingly, as far as I am
concerned, it matters not one whit whether the case tool generates Ada,
C or double dutch, if the generated code is never seen by humans, and
never treated as anything else than an intermediate language by the
compilation system. THe point is that you are programming in input to the
case tool, and that's what should be examined for legitimate consideration
of whether it should be in Ada.)

Thought for the week: how much in taxpayers money is being taken up by
GA's postings (or anyone elses for that matter). You have to consider
disk space on govt funded machines, traffic on govt funded networks,
and time spent by govt funded employees (Let's me off the hook, not one
cent of my time is paid by the government :-)

Robert

Re: A proposal for Tri-Ada '94

[Fred McCall]

In <354omu$7ft@schonberg.cs.nyu.edu> dewar@cs.nyu.edu Robert Dewar writes:

>Greg, why not spend some more of YOUR OWN MONEY, which you seem quite happy
>to spend on your quest, whatever it is (assuming that for you like all of
>us, time is money), and produce your accurate number. I am sure it will
>be treated with the respect it deserves. As for me, I must not be part of
>the world, since I find I can proceed without knowing this number :-)

The problem is that Greg isn't in a position to get that number (and it
wouldn't mean a lot, even if he had it).  If anyone *really* feels that
this number is important, they should bother the program officers.
Program managers (the civilian ones) have enough to do already, and I
know we pitch these numbers (lines of code/language) every time we go
through a CDR (so the program officers should certainly have them -- and
they are used to evaluate the contract).

>Incidentally, I importantly include Case Tools, since people, especially
>at a high management level in industry and in DoD are being seduced by
>the story that Case tools eliminate the need for programming completely,
>and therefore, since there is no programming, there is no more issue of
>what programming language is being used.

I've heard that there are people who actually believe this, but I've
never seen it work for much of anything but business applications in
COBOL (and now C, I think -- I don't work on that side of the house).

>Thought for the week: how much in taxpayers money is being taken up by
>GA's postings (or anyone elses for that matter). You have to consider
>disk space on govt funded machines, traffic on govt funded networks,
>and time spent by govt funded employees (Let's me off the hook, not one
>cent of my time is paid by the government :-)

This is why I'm posting from a machine I bought on a connection I pay
for.  It's amazing how many people will try to threaten someone they
disagree with by claiming they're abusing government/company resources.
The sad thing about such threats is that they convince organizations
(managers tend to be over-reactive) to consider, or even to impose,
restrictive policies that do much toward removing a lot of the
usefulness of the net.  

[I've never had it happen in this newsgroup (or even in the comp
heirarchy), but I've been exposed to it in others.]


--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
merlin@annwfn.com -- I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Re: A proposal for Tri-Ada '94

[Alan D Zimmerman, Loral RSA]

In article IIv@world.std.com, srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian) writes:
>    Step one is to contact the people at DTIC, who maintain databases of
> every open DOD contract and final reports from all closed DoD reports.  It
> would be quite simple to have DISA prepare a list of all open software
> projects, which include a brief abstract and the telephone number of the
> project manager.   I don't know how big such a list is (I assume very big
> given the tens of billions the DoD spends on software procurement), but I
> do know that DTIC maintains this information in databases that are very
> straightforward to query.
>     Step one should take one day.

Yes, but it would not be complete.  What about Government Contracts that do not
produce final reports to DTIC.  A single example of this is the Range Technical
Services Contract with the Air Forces Eastern Range.  Ada development is being
performed there, but as far as I know, no information goes to DTIC.  Also,
since this is not a "software" contract, it would be missed.

[Rest deleted]
In order for this to be technically complete, you would have to get a list of
every government contract since the Ada mandate went into effect, contact
the developer, ask if any software was developed, was it new development or
strickly a modification to existing software, what the target environment was,
determine what the program's requirements were, determine if Ada compilers were
available for the target environment that would meet the program requirements,
and so on.  I am sure I have missed a few steps here, but I believe that Greg
has oversimplified the scenario.

What would this prove.  Every year, I see states publishing statistics on
how many people are violating the seat belt law.  Does this help in
getting people to wear their seat belts?  Even if Tri-Ada could put a
giant 100% would that help the wide spread use of Ada?  No, what we need
is cheap Ada compilers that Universities can use to teach new Computer Scientists
and Software Engineers about Ada and its advantages.  I think as
GNAT becomes more robust and colleges start using Ada as their teaching 
language, the use of Ada will increase.  

Alan Zimmerman
Software Engineer
Loral Space & Range Systems
----------------------------------------------------
With Lawyer;
Use Lawyer;

The views and opinions contained herein are solely that of the author and
do not represent the view and opinions of Loral...